ML20207N668

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Dispute Between Electrical QC Inspectors Re Circumstances Constituting Excused Absences from Work. Meeting Urged W/Qc Inspectors to Identify Any Incidents Involving Diminished Quality of Insp Efforts
ML20207N668
Person / Time
Site: Braidwood  
Issue date: 01/09/1987
From: Mark Miller
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To: Callihan A, Cole R, Grossman H
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#187-2160 OL, NUDOCS 8701140345
Download: ML20207N668 (3)


Text

-

2. / hd I

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 00M ETED e

COUNSELORS AT LAW U>NPC raaEE naSt~.= ~ALaLazA

'87 JAN 12 P4 :16 I

CH4CAGO.ILLHOIS 60602 I

EDea0 8.10HA&4. 4724902 rELEaHONE 312 554 7500 is S. LASALLE StaEET aceEat t LasCOLN.472. test rELEx. 2-5284 CHtCAGO, ILLINOIS 60603

' h,

,,,,cy,CutAwaut =*

CCRIIIN:.!i "Couo.myyyE gp3gy anoCroa

,c co

    • "h2 so"**

s

  • $I2E" 7'3*93 January 9, 1987 Herbert Grossman, Esq.

Chairman Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Law Judge 102 Oak Lane Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Richard F. Cole s

Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Numbers 50-456 and 50-457 -ol--

Dear Administrative Judges:

Pursuant to the duty of full disclosure as articu-lated by the Appeal Board in Duke Power Company (William B.

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 632 (1973), I am informing the Board and the parties of the following facts.

Since approximately December 18, 1986 there has been a dispute between electrical quality control inspectors employed by GE/MCIS and that company regarding, among other things, the circumstances which constitute an excused absence from work.

Whether or not an absence is considered by GE/MCIS to be an excused absence determines whether an individual inspector has accumulated sufficient hours of 8701140345 870109 gDR ADOCK 05000456 PDR 35 0 3

-\\3:

Administrative Judges

'g January 9, 1987 Page 2 work during a particular week so as to qualify for overtime assignments on Saturdays.

Representatives of Local Union 306 were involved in these discussions as was Dan Shamblin, l

Edison's. Project Construction Department Superintendent for Braidwood.

Between December 18 and December 22 there were a number of threats of strikes by the inspectors.

Also during this time period two individuals were terminated for absenteeism and one was terminated for insubordination.

Comstock QC management was involved only to the extent that it urged GE/MCIS to take whatever action was necessary so that there l

were an adequate number of inspectors available for inspection duties.

On December 22 Mr. Shamblin contacted the NRC resident's office to describe the situation to them and to advise them that in his opinion there were no safety issues l

involved.

Mr. Shamblin talked to NRC inspector Taylor on this subject.

On December 23 Mr. Tongue, the other NRC i

1 resident inspector, called Mr. Shamblin and informed him that j

cortain unidentified inspectors had stated.that the actions taken by GE/MCIS management and Comstock management constituted j

harassment and were having an effect on their job performance.

One inspector reported to Mr. Tongue that he had torn up some inspection correction reports.

Another inspector claimed that he had accepted a rejectable condition on a motor operated valve.

Apparently neither inspector was able to provide Mr. Tongue with a specific description of the incident.

In any event, Mr. Shamblin was not informed of either the identity of the inspectors who visited the NRC or the nature of the incidents allegedly affecting the quality 1

of their inspections.- Mr. Shamblin asked Mr. DeWald to meet with the QC inspectors to urge them to come forward and identify any incidents in which the quality of inspection i

efforts were diminished as a result of their dispute with GE/MCIS or Local 306 so that overinspections or reinspections of that work could take place.

There was no response to Mr.

l DeWald's request nor has Commonwealth Edison's Quality First organization received any information regarding this matter.

A copy of Mr. DeWald's memorandum to the file regarding this matter dated December 24, 1986 is attached.

Sincerely, MIM:es Michael I. Miller enc.

i cc Service List I

4

.,-,,,.___.,..,.-..-.-,-__,..-.-.-,,.,,,n,.

n.,.

7

~

Comstock Engineering, Inc.

Memorandum File Braidwood 3

g,,,,,,

I. DeWald Feom:

ga ons Concerdng QC In5pecdons

/ 4/86

Subject:

Date:

Control No. 86-12-24-01 At approximately 12:30 p.m. on 12/23/86 I was notified of the allegation that various inspectors felt their inspections were being impaired due to the labor and management dispute between MCIS, Local 306, and its members.

I then took ingnediate action by assemblying the various inspection groups and clerical staff at scheduled times throughout the afternoon of 12/23/86 to present LKC Quality Control Management's concern for the quality of inspections performed by each inspector.

It was explained to each group that LK Comstock Quality Control Management's responsibility lies only with the supervision of the Quality Control Program, and the quality of inspections performed by each inspector, not the labor management problems.

Therefore since the allegation has been made LKC Quality Control Management is requesting that if any inspector feels his/her inspections have been impaired through the labor dispute between MCIS, Local 305 and it's members to come forward and identify themselves so that their inspections can be overviewed, or reinspected by management or other qualified individuals. As it is LKC Quality Control Management's responsibility to ensure the quality of inspections has not been effected.

The request was also extended to each group in that if the individual did not want to disclose themselves during the meeting that it could be done by coming to my office at their convenience after the meeting.

There was no response to the request from any individual either at the end of the nrsting or in my of fice.

M-I.F. DeWald Quality Control Manager L. G. Seese Witnessed Asst. QC Mgr.

IFD/sb

.